SR-061891-6Y
.
.
~-y
CA:RMM:jld595sr{hpc{pc
City Council Meeting 6-18-91
JUN 1 8 1991
Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Mayor and city Council
FROM:
city Attorney
SUBJECT:
certification of statement of Official Action
Denying CUP 90-026 and DR 90-006 for a Proposed
16 unit Condominium Project at 951 Ocean Avenue
At its hearing held on March 12, 1991, the City Council
upheld an appeal and overturned the Planning Commission's
approval of Conditional Use Permit 90-026 and Development Review
Permit 90-006 for construction of a proposed 16 unit condominium
project at 951 Ocean Avenue. The City Council directed staff to
prepare a Statement of Official Action containing its findings.
The accompanying statement of Official Action has been
prepared and sets forth the city council findings with respect to
this appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanying
statement of Official Action be approved.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, city Attorney
Joseph Lawrence, Assistant City Attorney
~-'{
\.
JUN -1 ~ ''1~'
~ ........._ . ..J..,
.
.
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: CUP 90-026, DR 90-006, VTM 46656
LOCATION: 951 Ocean Avenue
APPLICANT: Sakakura America, Inc.
REQUEST: Appeal of Planning commission Approval of
Conditional Use Permit 90-026 and
Development Review Permit 90-006 to Allow
the Construction of a 16 Unit Condominium
Located at 951 Ocean Avenue
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
3(12/91
Date.
Approved proj ect based on the following
findings and subject to the conditions below.
x Denied CUP 90-026, DR 90-006.
Other.
Following a public hearing held March 12, 1991, the City
Council upholds the appeal and denies CUP 90-026 and DR 90-006
based upon the following findings:
FINDINGS
1. The proposed development consists of the construction of a
sixteen (16) unit condominium located at 951 Ocean Avenue.
The project would encompass five contiguous city lots along
Ocean Avenue and directly across from Palisades Park in the
..
City of Santa Monica. Each unit in the project would sell
for in excess of two million dollars ($2,000,000.00).
2. The proposed project developer has requested a Conditional
Use Permit ("CUP") as well as a Development Review Permit
("DRP") for the project.
The developer has also filed a
- 1 -
.
.
request for the approval of the Vesting Tentative Map
( t1VTM") .
3. Following approval of the proposed project by the Planning
Commission of the city of Santa Monica, the project's CUP
and DRP approval was timely appealed to the City Council of
the city of Santa Monica for the following reasons:
"massing of building, incompatibility of
neighborhood. Applicant was originally
told to make model for second meeting,
model was grossly inaccurate and Planning
Commission decision was based on
inaccurate information provided by the
applicant; also lack of compliance with
original Planning Commission's
modification requests.t1
4. A pUblic hearing on the appeal was held before the city
Council on March 12, 1991, with evidence presented by the
proposed project's developer and interested members of the
public.
5. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9114.4, the
City Council may approve a cup if all of the following
findings of fact can be made in an affirmative matter:
(a) The proposed use is one
conditionally permitted within the
subject district and complies with all of
the applicable provisions of this
Chapter.
- 2 -
.
.
(b) The proposed use would not
impair the integrity and character of the
district in which it is to be established
or located.
(c) The subject parcel is
physically suitable for the type of land
use being proposed.
(d) The proposed use is compatible
wi th any of the land uses presently on
the subject parcel if the present land
uses are to remain.
(e) The proposed use would be
compatible with existing and permissible
land uses wi thin the district and the
general area in which the proposed use is
to be located.
(f) There are adequate provisions
for water, sanitation, and public
utilities and services to ensure that the
proposed use would not be detrimental to
public health and safety.
(g) Public access to the proposed
use shall be adequate.
(h) The physical location or
placement of the use on the site is
compatible with and relates harmoniously
to the surrounding neighborhood.
- 3 -
.
.
(i) The proposed use is consistent
with the goals, objectives, and policies
of the General Plan.
(j) The proposed use would not be
detrimental to the public interest,
heal th, safety, convenience, or general
welfare.
(k) The proposed use conforms
precisely to the applicable performance
standards contained in Subchapter 6,
Section 9050 and the special conditions
outlined in Subchapter 7, Section 9055.
(1) The proposed use will not
result in an over concentration of such
uses in the immediate vicinity.
6. The proposed project's developer has the burden of
providing evidence sufficient to enable the City council to
make the findings required by section 9114.4.
7. The evidence presented at the city council hearing on the
proposed project indicated that the project would consist
of a single building spanning five City lots. The Ocean
Avenue facade of the building would have glass enclosed
recessed "u" shaped courtyards but otherwise the building
would be an unbroken and undivided structure. As designed,
the proposed building would block prevailing air
circulation off the ocean to buildings east of the proposed
project.
8. The proposed project would be four (4) stories in height.
- 4 -
.
.
9. Building uses surrounding the proposed project consist
primarily of three (3) story residential structures with
some two (2) story residential structures located on one
(1) or two (2) lots.
10. The surrounding structures are occupied by many long term
elderly residents.
11. The proposed project's developer displayed a model of the
project and surrounding building uses at the city council
public hearing. The model was not true to scale and made
the surrounding buildings appear larger than they are.
This had the effect of making the proposed project falsely
appear to be the same size as the neighborhood. At the
hearing, the developer was unable to indicate the true
height and mass relationships that would exist between the
proposed project and surrounding buildings.
12. No other building in the vicinity of the proposed project
is as large as the project or covers as many lots.
13. Based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
City Council is unable to find in an affirmative manner, as
required by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9114.4(e),
that the proposed project is "compatible with existing and
permissible land uses within the district and the general
area in which the proposed use is to be located. fI The
proposed project is taller than virtually all surrounding
existing uses in height and spans a much larger land mass.
By using inaccurate models, the developer failed to provide
evidence of how the project is compatible with other uses
in the area.
- 5 -
.
.
14. Based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
city council is unable to find in an affirmative manner, as
required by Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9114.4(b),
that the proposed project "would not impair the integrity
and character of the district in which it is to be . . .
located." The proposed project area consists primarily of
2 and 3 story buildings that span one to two lots each.
The proposed project, which would cover five city lots in a
single building and which would be four stories in height,
would destroy the less intensely developed character of the
neighborhood. In addition, the large Ocean Avenue facade
of the building is out of character with this portion of
Ocean Avenue which consists primarily of smaller buildings
on fewer lots. The proposed project with its comparative
large massing is out of character with the pedestrian
nature of Ocean Avenue and palisades Park.
15. Based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
City council is unable to find in an affirmative manner, as
required by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9114.4(h)
that "the physical location or placement of the use on the
site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the
surrounding neighborhood." The proposed project consists
of a single building spanning five contiguous city lots in
a neighborhood where buildings generally span only one to
two lots. The project as designed has no break or
separation in its facade so as to permit light or air to
circulate to properties adjacent to it on the east. The
project has a greater height than neighboring uses and, due
- 6 -
.
.
to a lack of stepping back on its upper floors, has no
design features that would tend to mitigate or mask its
height and mass and thus allow it to be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
16. Based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
city Council is unable to find in an affirmative manner, as
required by Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9114.4(j),
that "the proposed use would not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general
welfare." As a single building spanning five lots, the
proposed project will block light and air circulation to
residential buildings surrounding it. These buildings
house several elderly residents whose health and welfare
could be adversely affected by such a consequence of the
project.
17. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9115.4, the
city council shall approve a DRP "if all of the following
findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner:
(a) The physical location, size,
massing, and placement of proposed
structures on the site and the location
of proposed uses within the project are
compatible with and relate harmoniously
to surrounding sites and neighborhoods.
The size of the project shall be deemed
compatible with and relate harmoniously
to surrounding sites and neighborhoods
provided the project is consistent with
- 7 -
.
.
the height and density standards set
forth in the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, except in those cases where
the Land Use Element allows for the
exercise of discretion in relation to the
height and density of a proposed project.
(b) The rights-of-way can
accommodate autos and pedestrians,
including adequate parking and access.
(c) The health and safety services
(police, fire, etc.) and public
infrastructure (e.g., utilities) are
sufficient to accommodate the new
development.
(d) Anyon-site provision of
housing or parks and public open space,
which are part of the required proj ect
mitigation measures required in
Subchapter 5G, satisfactorily meet the
goals of the mitigation program.
(e) The project is generally
consistent with the Municipal Code and
General Plan.
(f) Reasonable mitigation measures
have been included for all adverse
impacts identified in an Initial study or
Environmental Impact Report. II
- 8 -
.
.
18. Based on evidence presented at the public hearing, the City
council is unable to find, as required by Santa Monica
Municipal Code section 9115.4 (a) that tithe physical
location, size, massing, and placement of the proposed
structures on the site and the location of proposed uses
within the project are compatible with and relate
harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods." The
proposed project spans five City lots as a single building
rising to four stories in height. The massing of the
building exceeds the size of any building in the
neighborhood which contains structures primarily two or
three stor ies in height on one to two lots. The proj ect
has no breaks in its facade sufficient to permit light and
air to pass to adjoining properties and contains no step
backs to mitigate its mass. As a result, the mass of the
project is out of scale with the neighborhood and the
pedestrian nature of Palisades Park and Ocean Avenue which
is less intensely developed than the project.
19. Government Code section 65590(d) states that:
New housing developments constructed
within the coastal zone shall, where
feasible, provide housing units for
persons and families of low or moderate
income, as defined in section 50093 of
the Health and Safety Code. Where it is
not feasible to provide these housing
units in a proposed new housing
development, the local government shall
- 9 -
.
.
require the developer to provide such
housing, if feasible to do so, at another
location within the same city or county,
either within the coastal zone or within
three miles thereof.
20. Government Code section 65590(g) (3) states that:
"Feasible" means capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time,
taking into account economic,
environmental,
factors.
21. Health and Safety Code section 50093 states that:
"Persons and families of low or moderate
social
and
technical
incomeu means persons and families whose
income does not exceed 120 percent of
area income, adjusted for family size by
the department [of Housing and Community
Development] in accordance with
adjustment factors adopted and amended
from time to time by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban
Development pursuant to Section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937.
22. The proposed project lies within the coastal zone of the
City of Santa Monica.
23 . The proposed proj ect' s developer presented no evidence at
the public hearing that any housing units would be provided
- 10 -
.
.
by it on site or elsewhere within the City for persons of
low or moderate income. The developer stated that each
condominium unit proposed to be built would sell for in
excess of two million dollars ($2,000,000.00).
24. Based on the evidence at the public hearing, the city
council finds that the proposed project includes no
provision for housing persons of low or moderate income as
required by Government Code section 65590(d) either on
site, elsewhere within the coastal zone, or within three
miles of the coastal zone. The proposed condominium units
are each expected to sell for in excess of two million
dollars ($2,000,000.00). The proposed project's developer
presented no evidence that the provision of housing for
persons of low or moderate income would be infeasible
either on site or anywhere else within the city of Santa
Monica.
25. The proposed project's developer failed to provide at the
public hearing any feasible alternate to its proposal that
would mitigate the potential adverse public health and
safety effects of the project.
26. A denial of the proposed project will not adversely affect
the supply of low or moderate income housing wi thin the
City of Santa Monica. None of the condominium units
proposed to be built by the developer are affordable to
persons of low or moderate income as the developer has
indicated that it plans on selling each for in excess of
two million dollars. In addition, the developer has not
- 11 -
.
.
proposed building low or moderate income affordable housing
anywhere else within the city of Santa Monica.
27. Government Code section 65589.5 has no application to this
project. This section only applies, if at all, to charter
cities such as the city of Santa Monica to the extent that
the City disapproves a housing development proj ect
affordable to low and moderate income households. For all
other proposed housing development projects it is within
the municipal affairs of the City to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the project.
28. To the extent that Government Code section 65589.5 applies
to the denial of the proposed project, the project has a
specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety
which cannot be feasibly mitigated as set forth in the
findings made above.
jld~95b/hpc/pc
- 12 -